Multi-column layout with CSS

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Dave Boland, Sep 18, 2009.

  1. Dave Boland

    Dave Boland Guest

    All,

    I'm doing a new layout for a tool that uses a web page as the user
    interface. This layout will be two columns, 6 pages. I have been
    playing with designs and reading things online, but I still have a few
    questions if anyone can help.

    First, there seems to be some debate about the best way to do a web page
    - fixed width or variable (liquid) width. Most news sites seem to use
    fixed width, and I likely will as well. What I would like to know is
    what is the down-side and how important is it?

    There also seems to be two ways to do multi-columns - absolute
    positioning and floating. I have tried an example of both and don't
    clearly see much advantage either way. What did I miss?

    I'm hand coding everything so I learn what the heck I'm doing, but I
    have to say, it is the long way to get a few pages done.

    Thanks,
    Dave
     
    Dave Boland, Sep 18, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dave Boland

    dorayme Guest

    In article <h90jiu$htp$>, Dave Boland <>
    wrote:

    > All,
    >
    > I'm doing a new layout for a tool that uses a web page as the user
    > interface. This layout will be two columns, 6 pages. I have been
    > playing with designs and reading things online, but I still have a few
    > questions if anyone can help.
    >
    > First, there seems to be some debate about the best way to do a web page
    > - fixed width or variable (liquid) width. Most news sites seem to use
    > fixed width, and I likely will as well. What I would like to know is
    > what is the down-side and how important is it?
    >


    The downside of pixel fixed width for the guts of the site is that when
    users want to take advantage of their nice new widescreen LCDs and
    reduce their need to scroll, they can't and this stirs their emotions
    from sad to dangerous.

    Another is that when users use text sizes that the pixel fixed width
    author was not expecting - fixed width brigade people tend to be a bit
    blind to font-size usability issues. It goes with the territory usually
    - text (headings and all) can break out or be cut off or be quite ugly
    in its wrapping.

    But a good author can guard against these dangers to some extent and
    some pages can be safely fixed. Everything depends on the material and
    the case.

    > There also seems to be two ways to do multi-columns - absolute
    > positioning and floating. I have tried an example of both and don't
    > clearly see much advantage either way. What did I miss?
    >


    Perhaps nothing, perhaps a lot. How about giving a URL of a page which
    you personally find as easy to make one way as the other and folk here
    might point out useful things to you.

    > I'm hand coding everything so I learn what the heck I'm doing, but I
    > have to say, it is the long way to get a few pages done.
    >

    If you make one page, the other five following the template should not
    be too hard?

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Sep 19, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dave Boland

    Dave Boland Guest

    Thanks dorayme. I read your thoughts about different monitors and
    resolutions affecting fixed size. I use a 21 and 25 inch monitor and
    two resolutions -- 1280x1024 and 1600x1200. I find that when web sites
    of fixed size are coded from the left (not centered), I can just
    decrease the size of the browser window and life is fine. Typically, I
    don't want the browser window to be any larger than about half the
    screen width so I can have other windows open. So I guess I don't see
    this as a big issue as long as I code for a 800px width (like Yahoo and
    others).

    You did bring up something that I didn't think about -- the effect of
    enlarging the font for people with vision problems. I agree that this
    is very important. I'm going to play with the Yahoo and a few other
    news sites to see how they do.

    As for absolute vs. float for layout, I think I found an answer.
    Absolute positioning makes having a footer difficult because the page
    designer needs to know how large the columns will be so the footer isn't
    way down the page. Since I like to design with the future in mind
    (footer not needed now, but...), I will use a floating design.

    Dave,

    dorayme wrote:
    > In article <h90jiu$htp$>, Dave Boland <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> All,
    >>
    >> I'm doing a new layout for a tool that uses a web page as the user
    >> interface. This layout will be two columns, 6 pages. I have been
    >> playing with designs and reading things online, but I still have a few
    >> questions if anyone can help.
    >>
    >> First, there seems to be some debate about the best way to do a web page
    >> - fixed width or variable (liquid) width. Most news sites seem to use
    >> fixed width, and I likely will as well. What I would like to know is
    >> what is the down-side and how important is it?
    >>

    >
    > The downside of pixel fixed width for the guts of the site is that when
    > users want to take advantage of their nice new widescreen LCDs and
    > reduce their need to scroll, they can't and this stirs their emotions
    > from sad to dangerous.
    >
    > Another is that when users use text sizes that the pixel fixed width
    > author was not expecting - fixed width brigade people tend to be a bit
    > blind to font-size usability issues. It goes with the territory usually
    > - text (headings and all) can break out or be cut off or be quite ugly
    > in its wrapping.
    >
    > But a good author can guard against these dangers to some extent and
    > some pages can be safely fixed. Everything depends on the material and
    > the case.
    >
    >> There also seems to be two ways to do multi-columns - absolute
    >> positioning and floating. I have tried an example of both and don't
    >> clearly see much advantage either way. What did I miss?
    >>

    >
    > Perhaps nothing, perhaps a lot. How about giving a URL of a page which
    > you personally find as easy to make one way as the other and folk here
    > might point out useful things to you.
    >
    >> I'm hand coding everything so I learn what the heck I'm doing, but I
    >> have to say, it is the long way to get a few pages done.
    >>

    > If you make one page, the other five following the template should not
    > be too hard?
    >
     
    Dave Boland, Sep 19, 2009
    #3
  4. Dave Boland

    David Segall Guest

    Dave Boland <> wrote:

    > I find that when web sites
    >of fixed size are coded from the left (not centered), I can just
    >decrease the size of the browser window and life is fine.


    I don't understand this. Once you adjust your browser window to be the
    same size as the web page what difference does it make to you how the
    author justified the page in the window?
     
    David Segall, Sep 19, 2009
    #4
  5. Dave Boland

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    David Segall <> wrote:

    > Dave Boland <> wrote:
    >
    > > I find that when web sites
    > >of fixed size are coded from the left (not centered), I can just
    > >decrease the size of the browser window and life is fine.

    >
    > I don't understand this. Once you adjust your browser window to be the
    > same size as the web page what difference does it make to you how the
    > author justified the page in the window?


    OP is perhaps *imagining* that if he came across a fixed width site
    centred, he would be left with an unremovable left wasted space whereas,
    of course, as you know, the centring bit via margin: auto (or
    text-align: center in some cases for IE) *is* the only fluid bit that
    conveniently is user controllable.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Sep 20, 2009
    #5
  6. Dave Boland

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 19 Sep 2009, David Segall <> wrote:

    > Dave Boland <> wrote:
    >
    >> I find that when web sites
    >>of fixed size are coded from the left (not centered), I can just
    >>decrease the size of the browser window and life is fine.

    >
    > I don't understand this. Once you adjust your browser window to be the
    > same size as the web page what difference does it make to you how the
    > author justified the page in the window?


    Perhaps the centering-reposition affect as the page width is reduced
    causes him vertigo.

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 20, 2009
    #6
  7. Dave Boland

    dorayme Guest

    In article <h92l7q$ngi$>, Dave Boland <>
    wrote:

    > Thanks dorayme. I read your thoughts about different monitors and
    > resolutions affecting fixed size. ...


    >
    > You did bring up something that I didn't think about -- the effect of
    > enlarging the font for people with vision problems. I agree that this
    > is very important. I'm going to play with the Yahoo and a few other
    > news sites to see how they do.
    >


    I would not describe people who are not like young website makers with
    20:20 vision (or better... there are such people!) as having 'vision
    problems'. <g>

    While checking something this morning, I came across a page that was
    quite foolish in respect to this matter by someone who you would have
    supposed would know better:

    <http://www.headbank.co.uk/workshop/stretchpanels.htm>

    Just look at how absolutely foolish this is, the fixed width is tiny,
    that is pretty annoying in itself, frankly. And then, at my comfortable
    text size, the display of the mark up (yes, I know, in <pre></pre>, it
    does not excuse it.) spills out over the grey. Clearly, it never seemed
    to occur to the webpage maker (author of article maybe or not?) to
    bother looking at what happens to anyone but him on his machine. There
    will be a *special penalty* for this cyberautism when I become ruler of
    the world.

    The main thing to be aware of is something very simple really. If a user
    can make his text bigger or smaller independent of the pixel-sized
    element box it is "in", then it cannot be guaranteed to stay inside that
    box. One way the webpage maker can guarantee that text does always stay
    in element boxes is to either

    1. not specify the box in pixels,

    2. not specify it at all (DIVs, for example, assuming no borders,
    margins and padding, are 100% of their containing element, think browser
    window, to simplify)

    3. specify it in em units. em units are the language of font size. So,
    if you specify a box as 20em wide, there is little chance that "Never
    give a sucker an even break" won't fit in.


    > As for absolute vs. float for layout, I think I found an answer.
    > Absolute positioning makes having a footer difficult because the page
    > designer needs to know how large the columns will be so the footer isn't
    > way down the page. Since I like to design with the future in mind
    > (footer not needed now, but...), I will use a floating design.


    Some people like their footers to really foot! Anyway, not that you
    imply otherwise, float designs allow for both footers to appear just
    after the content above or to go right down to the bottom of the
    viewport (called sticky footers). And absolute positioning is a wizard's
    game and there's not much that cannot be done with it in expert hands. I
    would not advise using it all if you are a beginner.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Sep 20, 2009
    #7
  8. Dave Boland

    Dave Boland Guest

    David Segall wrote:
    > Dave Boland <> wrote:
    >
    >> I find that when web sites
    >> of fixed size are coded from the left (not centered), I can just
    >> decrease the size of the browser window and life is fine.

    >
    > I don't understand this. Once you adjust your browser window to be the
    > same size as the web page what difference does it make to you how the
    > author justified the page in the window?


    Some are centered in the page with both right and left borders for no
    apparent reason. I see this on hobby pages, but all professional pages
    (at least that I have seen) are left justified. So I don't need to
    adjust both sides of the browser window. Simple enough?

    Dave,
     
    Dave Boland, Sep 21, 2009
    #8
  9. Dave Boland

    Dave Boland Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > David Segall <> wrote:
    >
    >> Dave Boland <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I find that when web sites
    >>> of fixed size are coded from the left (not centered), I can just
    >>> decrease the size of the browser window and life is fine.

    >> I don't understand this. Once you adjust your browser window to be the
    >> same size as the web page what difference does it make to you how the
    >> author justified the page in the window?

    >
    > OP is perhaps *imagining* that if he came across a fixed width site
    > centred, he would be left with an unremovable left wasted space whereas,
    > of course, as you know, the centring bit via margin: auto (or
    > text-align: center in some cases for IE) *is* the only fluid bit that
    > conveniently is user controllable.
    >


    I'm not imagining anything. I simply find centered pages annoying and
    amateurish. You don't see that with professional pages. Also, if your
    spelling is indicative of your web page prowess, then you really should
    find another job.

    Dave,
     
    Dave Boland, Sep 21, 2009
    #9
  10. Dave Boland

    Dave Boland Guest

    Neredbojias wrote:
    > On 19 Sep 2009, David Segall <> wrote:
    >
    >> Dave Boland <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I find that when web sites
    >>> of fixed size are coded from the left (not centered), I can just
    >>> decrease the size of the browser window and life is fine.

    >> I don't understand this. Once you adjust your browser window to be the
    >> same size as the web page what difference does it make to you how the
    >> author justified the page in the window?

    >
    > Perhaps the centering-reposition affect as the page width is reduced
    > causes him vertigo.
    >


    No vertigo, just don't want to do a web page that looks like one you
    armatures created it.

    Dave,
     
    Dave Boland, Sep 21, 2009
    #10
  11. Dave Boland

    rf Guest

    "Dave Boland" <> wrote in message
    news:h97pph$8ub$...
    > dorayme wrote:
    >> In article <>,
    >> David Segall <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Dave Boland <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I find that when web sites of fixed size are coded from the left (not
    >>>> centered), I can just decrease the size of the browser window and life
    >>>> is fine.
    >>> I don't understand this. Once you adjust your browser window to be the
    >>> same size as the web page what difference does it make to you how the
    >>> author justified the page in the window?

    >>
    >> OP is perhaps *imagining* that if he came across a fixed width site
    >> centred, he would be left with an unremovable left wasted space whereas,
    >> of course, as you know, the centring bit via margin: auto (or text-align:
    >> center in some cases for IE) *is* the only fluid bit that conveniently is
    >> user controllable.
    >>

    >
    > I'm not imagining anything. I simply find centered pages annoying and
    > amateurish. You don't see that with professional pages. Also, if your
    > spelling is indicative of your web page prowess,


    And which particular spelling mistake might this be?

    > then you really should find another job.


    Strawman argument alert.
     
    rf, Sep 21, 2009
    #11
  12. Dave Boland

    David Segall Guest

    dorayme <> wrote:

    >The main thing to be aware of is something very simple really. If a user
    >can make his text bigger or smaller independent of the pixel-sized
    >element box it is "in", then it cannot be guaranteed to stay inside that
    >box. One way the webpage maker can guarantee that text does always stay
    >in element boxes is to either
    >
    >1. not specify the box in pixels,


    Of course your statement is correct but I don't think that it is
    necessarily wrong to specify a box in pixels. For example, the height
    of the heading of <http://films.profectus.com.au> is specified in
    pixels. I think it ensures that the heading makes sense over the range
    of browser windows that I am targeting. I don't think that this is
    possible using a different unit with the constraints I have explained
    below.
    >

    [snip]
    >3. specify it in em units. em units are the language of font size. So,
    >if you specify a box as 20em wide, there is little chance that "Never
    >give a sucker an even break" won't fit in.


    True, but it means that you must also use the browser to resize your
    images. There is currently a convention that favours a fixed image
    size because it loads faster. Do you think that the "average user" now
    has the bandwidth needed to resize the images without a perceptible
    delay.
     
    David Segall, Sep 21, 2009
    #12
  13. Dave Boland

    David Segall Guest

    Dave Boland <> wrote:

    >David Segall wrote:
    >> Dave Boland <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I find that when web sites
    >>> of fixed size are coded from the left (not centered), I can just
    >>> decrease the size of the browser window and life is fine.

    >>
    >> I don't understand this. Once you adjust your browser window to be the
    >> same size as the web page what difference does it make to you how the
    >> author justified the page in the window?

    >
    >Some are centered in the page with both right and left borders for no
    >apparent reason. I see this on hobby pages, but all professional pages
    >(at least that I have seen) are left justified.


    You lead a fortunate and sheltered life. Most professional web page
    developers are obliged to periodically visit Microsoft's "hobby pages"
    <http://www.microsoft.com/>.

    > So I don't need to
    >adjust both sides of the browser window. Simple enough?


    Yes, but I can make it even simpler. The Firefox Web Developer Add On
    provides a "Resize to 1024 x nnnn" menu choice with a couple of clicks
    and no adjustment. You can specify "nnnn" to match the height of your
    viewport. 1024 is the current "standard" for a fixed width page. If
    you don't use Firefox I am reasonably confident that someone here can
    tell you how to add this functionality to your preferred browser.
     
    David Segall, Sep 21, 2009
    #13
  14. Dave Boland wrote:
    > I'm not imagining anything. I simply find centered pages annoying and
    > amateurish. You don't see that with professional pages.

    [...]

    So, centered pages are only produced by amateurs and are not used on
    professional pages?

    A quick survey;

    http://www.bbc.co.uk
    http://www.microsoft.com
    http://www.ubuntu.com
    http://www.ibm.com
    http://www.rolls-royce.com
    http://www.number10.gov.uk
    http://www.angloamerican.co.uk
    http://www.ferrari.com

    .... what a bunch of amateurs! ;-)

    Cheers,
    Nige

    --
    Nigel Moss
    http://www.nigenet.org.uk
    Replace "spamfree" in email address with "nigel" to reply
    "Your mother ate my dog!", "Not all of him"
     
    nice.guy.nige, Sep 21, 2009
    #14
  15. Dave Boland

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    David Segall <> wrote:

    > Dave Boland <> wrote:
    >
    > >David Segall wrote:
    > >> Dave Boland <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> I find that when web sites
    > >>> of fixed size are coded from the left (not centered), I can just
    > >>> decrease the size of the browser window and life is fine.
    > >>
    > >> I don't understand this. Once you adjust your browser window to be the
    > >> same size as the web page what difference does it make to you how the
    > >> author justified the page in the window?

    > >

    ....
    > > So I don't need to
    > >adjust both sides of the browser window. Simple enough?

    >


    I found your puzzlement perfectly unpuzzling and shared it. This
    delightful reply by the OP deepens the mystery. But I have the solution.
    He is a disembodied spirit with no actual practical experience.

    The OP seems to think that when a box is fixed in the centre of a screen
    in a browser on a wide enough monitor, a user keen to be rid of the two
    useless sides must somehow perform two window resize operations. One to
    get rid of the left unwanted and another to get rid of the right! He
    perhaps thinks that just as there is a right bottom corner handle on
    browsers, there must be a left.

    Now, it is excusable for a disembodied spirit not to know about such
    practical bodily things like mouse operations (it is a muscular affair,
    it's lightness still way beyond the capabilities of a being with no
    muscle at all). But there seems to be a misunderstanding about how
    centring works in CSS. This is more serious!

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Sep 21, 2009
    #15
  16. Dave Boland

    Eric Bednarz Guest

    Dave Boland <> writes:

    > […] a web page that looks like one you armatures created it.

    ^of ^r
    You are welcome.
     
    Eric Bednarz, Sep 21, 2009
    #16
  17. Dave Boland

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    David Segall <> wrote:

    > dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    > >The main thing to be aware of is something very simple really. If a user
    > >can make his text bigger or smaller independent of the pixel-sized
    > >element box it is "in", then it cannot be guaranteed to stay inside that
    > >box. One way the webpage maker can guarantee that text does always stay
    > >in element boxes is to either
    > >
    > >1. not specify the box in pixels,

    >
    > Of course your statement is correct but I don't think that it is
    > necessarily wrong to specify a box in pixels.


    I agree and was not meaning to imply otherwise. Indeed, it is sometimes
    quite sensible to have a navigation col fixed. The downside of fixed is
    that text can break out. The downside of em is that more screen space
    than is strictly needed is taken up when text is big. It can also be
    said that fixed width that has a built in buffer for text size
    enlargement (e.g. 200px for links that are short and snappy, "About us")
    is wasting space at small text sizes! It is all a matter of judgement in
    the particular circumstances.

    Now this needs to be understood right. If an author makes the words in
    the links in the left navigation column reasonable short ones, he can be
    more confident that none of them will break out except at *highly*
    unlikely text sizes, they will wrap instead. And they may or may not
    look good when wrapped. This is where the judgement comes in. If the
    design and details don't lend to wrapping, then em is the way to go.

    > For example, the height
    > of the heading of <http://films.profectus.com.au> is specified in
    > pixels. I think it ensures that the heading makes sense over the range
    > of browser windows that I am targeting. I don't think that this is
    > possible using a different unit with the constraints I have explained
    > below.
    > >


    Sure, I see it as sensible to have your #headerRight {...; height:
    160px; ...} but here you have a rock solid argument, you need it to show
    the nice background image! I don't quite see the justification for your
    #headerLeft {...; height: 160px; ...} but I have not looked deeply.

    [I was distracted by the material and started to muse about what would
    have to have been the case for a film like I've loved you for so long"
    which totally mesmerized me, to get 5 stars. I would happily give it
    these! Thank you for attributing 4 stars on my behalf to Poppy, that is
    about right! <g>

    I have a criterion for judgement that I do not think is quite universal
    among critics and it is a hard one to apply after only one viewing: how
    well does the film stand up to repeated viewings? I doubt I could
    actually watch Poppy more than a few times. I seemed to have no trouble
    watching Witness over 25 times, or Big Country over 15 times or
    Unforgiven more than I can count...]


    > [snip]
    > >3. specify it in em units. em units are the language of font size. So,
    > >if you specify a box as 20em wide, there is little chance that "Never
    > >give a sucker an even break" won't fit in.

    >
    > True, but it means that you must also use the browser to resize your
    > images. There is currently a convention that favours a fixed image
    > size because it loads faster. Do you think that the "average user" now
    > has the bandwidth needed to resize the images without a perceptible
    > delay.


    I was mainly thinking of text. Not sure what you are referring to in
    respect to images, bandwidth etc?

    Sounds trite but I think one should only specify widths and heights when
    needed! It is much less needed than might be thought.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Sep 21, 2009
    #17
  18. Dave Boland

    Doug Miller Guest

    In article <h97pph$8ub$>, Dave Boland <> wrote:
    >dorayme wrote:


    >> OP is perhaps *imagining* that if he came across a fixed width site
    >> centred, he would be left with an unremovable left wasted space whereas,
    >> of course, as you know, the centring bit via margin: auto (or
    >> text-align: center in some cases for IE) *is* the only fluid bit that
    >> conveniently is user controllable.
    >>

    >I'm not imagining anything. I simply find centered pages annoying and
    >amateurish. You don't see that with professional pages.


    You're certainly imagining that you have even the remotest semblance of a clue
    regarding what a "professional page" is. ALL of the following are centered:

    microsoft.com
    ibm.com
    dell.com
    google.com
    foxnews.com
    cnn.com
    whitehouse.gov
    bbc.co.uk
    toyota.com
    pfizer.com

    > Also, if your
    >spelling is indicative of your web page prowess, then you really should
    >find another job.


    My, but you truly do enjoy displaying your ignorance, don't you? Even a brief
    glance at dorayme's email address would show you that she's posting from
    Australia. This may come as a shock to you, but most parts of the
    English-speaking world use British, not American, spellings, such as centre,
    theatre, colour, flavour, etc.
     
    Doug Miller, Sep 22, 2009
    #18
  19. Dave Boland

    Doug Miller Guest

    In article <h97psj$8ub$>, Dave Boland <> wrote:
    >Neredbojias wrote:
    >> On 19 Sep 2009, David Segall <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Dave Boland <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I find that when web sites
    >>>> of fixed size are coded from the left (not centered), I can just
    >>>> decrease the size of the browser window and life is fine.
    >>> I don't understand this. Once you adjust your browser window to be the
    >>> same size as the web page what difference does it make to you how the
    >>> author justified the page in the window?

    >>
    >> Perhaps the centering-reposition affect as the page width is reduced
    >> causes him vertigo.
    >>

    >
    >No vertigo, just don't want to do a web page that looks like one you
    >armatures created it.


    <snort>
    This, from the guy who flamed dorayme for spelling which was actually correct.
     
    Doug Miller, Sep 22, 2009
    #19
  20. Dave Boland

    Kevin Scholl Guest

    On Sep 21, 8:00 am, Dave Boland <> wrote:

    > ... centered pages annoying and amateurish ... don't see that with professional pages.


    Really? I'd say that's the single most common page orientation on the
    Web. Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, Dell, Sun Microsystems, most of the
    prominent news portals, etc. are all centered. Some sites are fluid,
    expanding and collapsing dynamically to fit the browser width.

    Adobe is one that is left-justified, but is clearly an exception to
    the norm.

    > all professional pages (at least that I have seen) are left justified. So I don't
    > need to adjust both sides of the browser window.


    (see above)

    Why would you need to adjust both sides of the browser window? A
    centered layout will remain centered as you collapse the browser width
    from either side (unless the author has done something really, really
    wonky with their code).
     
    Kevin Scholl, Sep 22, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Eric
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    741
    clintonG
    Dec 24, 2004
  2. Guybrush Threepwood

    Table-based layout to CSS layout

    Guybrush Threepwood, Jun 6, 2006, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    1,020
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    598
    John Timney \(MVP\)
    Jun 19, 2006
  4. Habib

    Css-Layout vs Table-Layout

    Habib, Jun 19, 2006, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    1,023
    Wÿrm
    Jun 20, 2006
  5. David Segall

    Automatic multi-column layout

    David Segall, Oct 5, 2006, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    604
    Andy Dingley
    Oct 5, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page